|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4797 | Automotive | 05/10/2006
A group of 140 plaintiffs is suing Ford, GM, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, AutoZone, and Advance Auto Parts. The plaintiffs are seeking a court ruling to be able to use the "product lines" they purchased as their proof of the required "product markets" in their antitrust suit for illegal price discrimination brought under the 1936 Federal Robinson-Patman Act.
The lawyer that filed the case claims that US components manufacturers are being forced to sell their products and product lines to Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, AutoZone and Advance Auto, at 50% of the price at which they are selling the same products to the independent competitors. This makes the independent distributors unable to compete with the major retailers, and has driven a large percentage of numerous auto-parts manufacturers out of business or into bankruptcy during the past 7 years. According to the handling attorney, "the manufacturers want me to win this lawsuit, but are afraid to state this publicly, for fear of losing their dubious opportunity to sell auto parts to the major auto-parts retailers at a substantial loss.” The defendants in the lawsuit are Wal-Mart, Sam's Club (subsidiary of Wal- Mart), AutoZone, Advance Auto Parts, General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Affinia Group, Inc. (private), ArvinMeritor, Inc., Ashland, Inc., Cardone Industries USA (private), Dana Corporation, Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (affiliate of Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies), Standard Motor Products, Inc., Stant Manufacturing, Inc. (subsidiary of Tomkins PLC), and The Armor All/STP Products Company (an Australian company). At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Automotive Cases of Interest A class action has been filed against BMW of North America, LLC, on behalf of thousands of 2001-2004 BMW X5 owners nationwide, who allege that the sport utility vehicles have defective air bags which can deploy for no reason, and that the company requires owners to sign confidentiality agreements before performing free repairs. The suit further claims that the confidentiality form violates Florida's 1990 Sunshine in Litigation Act barring secrecy about public hazards. Several class actions have been filed against financial services company Washington Mutual, Inc., (NYSE: WM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between April 15, 2003, and June 28, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Alton, Illinois plaintiff’s attorney Lanny Darr filed suit July 11, 2005 against Affirmative Insurance Company because it would only reimburse him $18.90 per day for a rental vehicle. Darr claims he was involved in an auto accident Feb. 14, 2005 with a driver, who was negligent and insured by Affirmative.
“Affirmative refused to lease a vehicle for Darr and failed to reimburse for an amount greater than $18.90 per day, which is illegal under Illinois law,” the complaint states. Darr claims he could not drive his Ford Explorer for several days while it was being repaired.
The class has been certified in an action filed against General Motors Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased a new Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, or Pontiac vehicle at retail in Pennsylvania from a franchised GM dealer between 1988 and 1999. The action alleges that GM added 1% of the manufacturer's suggested retail price to the invoice of each new vehicle it sold to its dealers, in violation of the Pennsylvania Board of Vehicles Act. A class action has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., on behalf of purchasers of the company’s 2003 and 2004 CR-Vs, who allege that the vehicles have defective O-Ring gaskets which allow oil to leak onto the vehicles' exhaust systems, causing them to burst into flames. The defect has allegedly caused many vehicles to be totally destroyed but the company has neither issued a recall nor warned consumers. The suit alleges breaches of the California Legal Remedies Act, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. A class action has been filed against Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and Shell Oil Company on behalf of all persons who purchased sulfur-tainted gasoline from New Orleans-area gas stations that were supplied by Motiva during May 2004. The action seeks compensatory damages to pay for vehicle repair and customer inconvenience. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
